Skip to main content
Log in

Intangible outcomes from a policy change: using contingent valuation to quantify potential stigma from a cannabis offence

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

New policies are increasingly required to be evaluated. One form of evaluation is a cost–benefit analysis where inputs and outcomes are all valued monetarily. However, intangible outcomes are often not included in these evaluations as they are perceived to be too difficult to value. The aim of this paper is to value one of the intangible benefits (decrease in stigma) from a potential change in drug policy using contingent valuation.

Methods

This paper reports on a contingent valuation study conducted among a community sample of 875 respondents on the internet. Respondents were asked what they would be willing to pay to avoid the stigma of a criminal record. Data were analysed with descriptive and regression analyses.

Results

The survey found respondents were willing to pay a mean of $1,231 ($1,112–1,322; AUD 2009) to avoid the stigma from a criminal record for a loved one or for themselves. Household income was an important predictor of willingness-to-pay (WTP). The WTP was significantly and positively related to whether the respondent believed cannabis was usually or always addictive while those who had used cannabis recently (within past 12 months) were less likely to pay more, relative to those who had not used recently.

Conclusions

This paper demonstrates the feasibility of using economic methods to value intangible benefits from drug policy changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ableson, P. (2000). Public economics principles and practice. Sydney: Applied Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • ACT Government Health Directorate. (2011). ACT Drug Diversion Data Activity Report 2010-2011. Canberra: ACT Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahern, J., Stuber, J., & Galea, S. (2007). Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88, 188–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., Solow, R., et al. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.

  • Atkinson, G., Healley, A., & Mourato, S. (2005). Valuing the cost of violent crime: a stated preference approach. Oxford Economic Papers, 57, 559–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). NSW 2006 census data. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). 6202.0 - Labour force, Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008). 2007 National drug strategy household survey. First results drug statistics series No 20. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J., & Goh, D. (2004). The cannabis cautioning scheme three years on: An implementation and outcome evaluation. Sydney: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, R., Fiebig, D., & va Soest, A. (2006). Consumers and experts: an econometric analysis of the demand for water heaters. Empirical Economics, 31, 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, A., Greenbery, D., Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2001). Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, J. (2007). Aggregation rules for cost-benefit analysis: a health economics perspective. Health Economics, 17, 863–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2006). Court statistics. Sydney: NSW Government Law Link.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champ, P. and Welsh, M. (2006). Survey methodologies for stated choice studies. Valuing Environmental Amenities Stated Choice Methods. A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Chilton, S., Covey, J., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., & Metcalf, H. (2004). Valuation of health benefits associated with reductions in air pollution. Final report. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. (2007). Valuing crime control benefits using stated preferences approaches. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M., Rust, R., Steen, S., & Tidd, S. (2004). Willingness-to-pay for crime control programs. Criminology, 42(1), 89–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crime Research Centre (2007). WA Diversion Program – Evaluation Framework (POP/STIR/IDP) Final Report for the Drug and Alcohol Office. Perth University of Western Australia.

  • Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, A., O’Brien, B., & Gafni, A. (1998). Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics, 7, 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., & Peasgood, T. (2007). Estimating the economic and social costs of the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminololgy, 47(1), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Loomes, G., Peasgood, T., & Tsuchiya, A. (2005). Estimating the intangible victim costs of violent crime. British Journal of Criminololgy, 45(6), 958–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, B. and McDonald, D. (2012.). The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children and we are all letting it happen, Australia 21. http://www.australia21.org.au//publications/press_releases/Australia21_Illicit_Drug_Policy_Report.pdf

  • Frew, E. (2010). Benefit assessment for cost-benefit analysis studies in health care using contingent valuation methods. In E. McIntosh, P. Clarke, E. Frew, & J. Louviere (Eds.), Applied methods of cost-benefit analysis in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, P. (2004). On the elective use of stigma as a crime-deterrent. European Economic Review, 48, 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furuya, K. (2002). A socio-economic model of stigma and related social problems. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48, 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gettman, J. (2007). Lost taxes and other consequences of marijuana laws. The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform., 4.

  • Global Commission on Drugs Policy. (2011). War on drugs. Ipanema, Brazil: Global Commission on Drugs Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliablity and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haden, M. (2008). Controlling illegal stimulants: a regulated market model. Harm Reduction Journal, 5, 1477–7517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, A., Comeau, N., & Erickson, P. (2011). Cannabis normalization and stigma: contemporary practices of moral regulation. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 11(5), 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, C. and Ritter, A. (2008). A summary of diversion programs for drug and drug-related offenders in Australia. DPMP Monographs. Sydney, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. No. 16.

  • Hughes, C., & Stevens, A. (2007). The effects of decriminalization of drug Use in Portugal. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme Briefing Paper, 14.

  • Hunter, N. (2001). Cannabis expiation notice (CENs) in South Australia, 1997 to 2000. Information Bulletin. Adelaide, Office of Crime Statistics, Attorney General’s Department. No 27.

  • Jacoby, A. (1994). “Felt versus enacted stigma: a concept revisited.” Social Science and Medicine(38): 269-274.

  • Johannesson, M., Jonsson, B., & Karlsson, G. (1996). Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Economics, 5, 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, S. (2005). Deterrence theory and the limitations of criminal penalties for cannabis use. In T. Stockwell, P. Gruenewald, J. Toumbourou, & W. Loxley (Eds.), Preventing harmful substance Use. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, S., & Heale, P. (2000). Arrest, court and social impacts of conviction for a minor cannabis offence under strict prohibition. Contemporary Drug Problems, 27, 807–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, S., Christie, P., et al. (1999). Infringement versus conviction: the social impact of a minor cannabis offence under a civil penalties system and strict prohibition in Two Australian states. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, L. (2010). Sinning and Sinned Against: The Stigmatisation of Problem Drug Users. London: University of York.

  • Lopes, G., Krohn, M., Lizotte, A. D., Schmidt, N. M., Vásquez, B. E., & Bernburg, J. G. (2012). Labeling and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of formal police intervention on life chances and crime during emerging adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 456–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lott, J. (1992). An attempt at measuring the total monetary penalty from drug convictions: The importance of an individual’s reputation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 21, 159–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., & Lancsar, E. (2009). Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Economics, Policy, and Law, 4, 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludgwig, J., & Cook, P. (2001). The benefits of reducing gun violence: Evidence from contingent-valuation survey data. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22, 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeganey, N. (2010) "Bad stigma … Good Stigma?" Drink and Drug News.

  • McKnight, D. (2005). Beyond right and left new politics and the culture wars. Sydeny: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD Project on Income Distribution and Poverty. (2005). “What are equivalence scales?” Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/52/35411111.pdf.

  • Olsen, S. (2009). Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering Non-market goods. Environmental Resource Economics, 44, 591–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J., & Smith, R. (2001). Theory vesus practice: a review of willingness-to-pay in health and health care. Health Economics, 10, 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. The American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S. (2006). Cost benefit analysis and the environment. Recent developments. OECD.

  • Pellegrini, S. and Jeanrenaud, C. (2003) Willingness to pay of the Swiss population for a public health programme against alcohol dependence. Neuchatel: University of Neuchatel.

  • Phillips, T., Tranter, B., Mitchell, D., Clark, J., & Reed, K. (2007). Australian survey of social attitudes, 2007. Canberra: The Australian National University, ACSPRI Centre for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, N., Cohen, M., & Piquero, A. (2011). How much is the public willing to Pay to be protected from identity theft? Justice Quarterly, 28, 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmusen, E. (1996). Stigma and self-fulfilling expectations of criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, 39, 519–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S. and Reuter, P. (2008). Cannabis Policy: Moving beyond stalemate. Global Cannabis Commission Foundation Oxford: Beckley Foundation.

  • Schwarzinger, M., Carrat, G., & Luchini, S. (2009). “If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question” evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchoring. Journal of Health Economics, 29, 873–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2000). The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics. Medical Decision Making, 20, 194–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2003). Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: A critical assessment. Health Economics, 12, 609–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2006). It’s not just what you do, it’s the way that you do it: The effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Economics, 15, 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2007). Use, option and externality values: Are contingent valuation studies in health care mis-specified? Health Economics, 16, 861–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNODC (2010). World Drug Report 2010, United Nations Publication Sales No. E.10.XI.13: 194.

  • van Dijk, J. (1998). The narrow margins of the Dutch drug policy: A cost benefit analysis. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 6, 369–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Laar, M. and van Ooyen-Houben, M. (2009). Evaluation Dutch Drug Policy, Trimbos instituut, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction.

  • Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2010). An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit-cost analysis to social policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analyisis, 1(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherburn, D., & Jones, C. (2001). Does prohibition deter cannabis use? crime and justice bulletin. Sydney: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, New South Wales Attorney’s General Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherburn, D., Jones, C., & Donnelly, N. (2003). Prohibition and Cannabis Use in Australia: A Survey of 18- to 29-year-olds. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36(1), 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, K., Powe, N., & Garrod, G. (2005). Estimating the value of improved street lighting: A factor analytical discrete choice approach. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2289–2303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, A., Reinarman, C., & Cohen, P. (2002). Cannabis control: costs outweigh the benefits: For. British Medical Journal, 324, 105–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. (2009). Introductory econometrics. A modern approach. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant from the Australian Research Council (DP0880066). This work forms part of the Drug Policy Modelling Program, a program funded by the Colonial Foundation Trust and auspiced by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, which receives core funding from the Commonwealth Government of Australia. Professor Ritter is funded through an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marian Shanahan.

Appendix

Appendix

Contingent valuation survey

There were four versions of the survey. Version 1 and Version 2 were identical except for the ordering of the fine values. Version 3 and Version 4 were identical except for the ordering of the Fine values. The WTP scenario in Version 1 and Version 2 starts with “You”. The WTP scenario in Version 3 and Version 4 starts with “Someone who is close to you”. Version 1 and Version 4 are presented.

Please carefully read the hypothetical scenario below and answer the hypothetical question posed.

Scenario

You have been detected by the police in possession of 12 g of cannabis. This is an amount of cannabis that is sufficient to make approximately 24 joints. This is the only offence you have ever committed. The police can charge you with a criminal offence. This would require you to attend Court, where if you plead guilty, or are found guilty by the Magistrate, would result in a criminal record. Having a criminal record may limit employment opportunities, ability to travel overseas to some countries, as well as carry the stigma of having a criminal record.

An alternative response by police may be to issue a fine. With this fine there would be no criminal record. Failure to pay the fine within 60 days results in additional interest charges, and if the fine is not paid, this will lead to the loss of drivers licence.

Thinking of the scenario you just read, which of the amounts listed below best describes the maximum fine you are willing to pay, to avoid court and a possible criminal record for possession of cannabis?

CONSIDERING YOUR ABLITY TO PAY PLEASE SELECT THE MAXIMUM FINE YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY TO AVOID A CRIMINAL RECORD

Fine

$0

$50

$150

$250

$500

$750

$1,000

$1,250

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

For those who selected $2,500 only

What is the maximum fine you would be willing to pay to avoid court and a possible criminal record? $_________

For everyone

You chose $_X which is approximately __XX __% of your weekly income. Would you like to change your answer? Yes____ No____

If yes, what is the maximum fine you are willing to pay to avoid court and a possible criminal record? _______

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shanahan, M., Ritter, A. Intangible outcomes from a policy change: using contingent valuation to quantify potential stigma from a cannabis offence. J Exp Criminol 10, 59–77 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9176-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9176-1

Keywords

Navigation